waymondospiff Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 We always listen to AM news that gives traffic information for the comute home. I will agree that very few listen to AM for entertainment anymore. AM stereo is just about non-exsistent nowadays. Except for the 12 million or so people who listen to Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity each day. But besides ratings that any broadcaster would kill for, yeah, no one listens to AM radio. I knew this would happen -- everybody placed high promise on the Taurus and now that its a couple months old it's OH MAN WE NEED BETTER STYLING THAN THIS How quickly we forget that Chrysler did this exact same thing - selling 300s to rental fleets in 2005 to expose the car to consumers. And that was such a huge flop, eh? Time and time again people on this site equate fleet sales with desparation. It's simply not true. Each of the Big 3 have long, complex contracts signed with the rental companies (Ford: Hertz & Avis/Budget, GM: Avis & National, Chrysler: Thrifty/Dollar & Advantage) that obligate the rental companies to take a set amount of vehicles AND for the manufacturers to provide a set number of vehicles. Ford has to meet that obligation or face penalties. If Ford thinks it's a good idea to get some of the Tauruses out in the hands of potential consumers by providing a limited number to rental fleets to help meet their contracted quotas, well, oddly enough, I think it's a good idea. Scott Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman100 Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 (edited) When cars advertise nothing but safety, that is a way of saying it is a boring, uninspired vehicle aimed at those who are afraid to drive, and afraid of life in general. Now that is an image I'd like to be associated with! Still, I suppose that is better than the market Ford has obsessively focused on the last few years - homosexuals. My old boss who has been a Ford man for years just bought his first Acura - blowing a tranny in a Continental, and then the Duratec engine in his 2003 Taurus blew a couple of month's ago - that was enough for him. I told him never buy a front wheel drive Ford - they just plain suck. He used to buy Grand Marquis, and they never gave him problems - too late now. Edited August 28, 2007 by taxman100 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 Still, I suppose that is better than the market Ford has obsessively focused on the last few years - homosexuals. Obsessively? No. Minor marketing programs. You have a head-space problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 Most listened to radio station in the nation: 1010 WINS in NY. Yes, that is an AM news station. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sonofford Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 Obsessively? No. Minor marketing programs. You have a head-space problem. That's not the only problem he has. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Reynolds Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 When cars advertise nothing but safety, that is a way of saying it is a boring, uninspired vehicle aimed at those who are afraid to drive, and afraid of life in general. Now that is an image I'd like to be associated with! Still, I suppose that is better than the market Ford has obsessively focused on the last few years - homosexuals. My old boss who has been a Ford man for years just bought his first Acura - blowing a tranny in a Continental, and then the Duratec engine in his 2003 Taurus blew a couple of month's ago - that was enough for him. I told him never buy a front wheel drive Ford - they just plain suck. He used to buy Grand Marquis, and they never gave him problems - too late now. Thanks for your insight.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MGallun Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 I told him never buy a front wheel drive Ford - they just plain suck. He used to buy Grand Marquis, and they never gave him problems - too late now. sure... my 99 contour SE worked fine for 7 years and 120k miles, and still running a year later and 20k more miles... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FordManBrad Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 It seems like everybody that I know that owed the 1985-2005 Taurus had the same story. They liked the car in the way that it rode and handled. BUT............the mechanical problems, especially transmission failures, 3.8 head gaskets, ball joints, tie rod ends, coil springs etc. really turned them off. Many owners got fed up with the problems and are driving Hondas and Toyotas now. Resurrecting the name carries both positive and negative viewpoints. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 It seems like everybody that I know that owed the 1985-2005 Taurus had the same story. They liked the car in the way that it rode and handled. BUT............the mechanical problems, especially transmission failures, 3.8 head gaskets, ball joints, tie rod ends, coil springs etc. really turned them off. Many owners got fed up with the problems and are driving Hondas and Toyotas now. Resurrecting the name carries both positive and negative viewpoints. There are more positives. I really believe the place Ford lost the VAST majority of its Taurus audience was simply to do with the STYLING. The mechanical issues were present, but they weren't overwhelming for most consumers. Take my mother for example, she owned two Tauruses -- an 87 and a 93. When she went to trade in her 93 and saw the abomination the Taurus had become by 1998, she turned right around and headed to Toyota and bought an Avalon instead. Sale instantly lost solely due to that horrid styling. I'm sure her story is identical several thousands of times over for other consumers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Reynolds Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 There are more positives. I really believe the place Ford lost the VAST majority of its Taurus audience was simply to do with the STYLING. The mechanical issues were present, but they weren't overwhelming for most consumers. Take my mother for example, she owned two Tauruses -- an 87 and a 93. When she went to trade in her 93 and saw the abomination the Taurus had become by 1998, she turned right around and headed to Toyota and bought an Avalon instead. Sale instantly lost solely due to that horrid styling. I'm sure her story is identical several thousands of times over for other consumers. Ditto that. My grandparents owned a 92 GL and then an 95 SHO, when it came to replace the SHO in 98 they didn't bite. Instead they ended up holding off until 02, when they purchased a Taurus SES (or whatever model it was). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SysEng Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 Lose 500 pounds? what the hell are you smoking? It weights 3600 pounds as is, that's pretty good for what it is. A FULL-SIZE SEDAN. Ummm your "full size sedan" happens to pork in at 4000lb. And thats while being pushed around by a V6 Oh, and in the real world, I drive a full size car ( its called a Grand Marquis ) and I don't smoke period! Which probably explains why I keel over laughing when anyone calls just about anything else ( short of a MeyBach or Bentley :shades: ) a "full size car". Your eyes have to work properly in the first place to tell the difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 Ummm your "full size sedan" happens to pork in at 4000lb. And thats while being pushed around by a V6 Oh, and in the real world, I drive a full size car ( its called a Grand Marquis ) and I don't smoke period! Which probably explains why I keel over laughing when anyone calls just about anything else ( short of a MeyBach or Bentley :shades: ) a "full size car". Your eyes have to work properly in the first place to tell the difference. Yes, because a car with large exterior and smaller interior is so much better than a car with a smaller exterior and larger interior. You really need to do some research. The car has to weigh that much. Thats what makes it as safe as it is. Besides that, your Grand Marquis weighs in at over 4100 lbs with a weaker V8 than the Taurus 6 and 2 fewer gears. It also gets worse gas mileage and is, to be honest, unattractive and old. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenCaylor Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 Ummm your "full size sedan" happens to pork in at 4000lb. And thats while being pushed around by a V6 Oh, and in the real world, I drive a full size car ( its called a Grand Marquis ) and I don't smoke period! Which probably explains why I keel over laughing when anyone calls just about anything else ( short of a MeyBach or Bentley :shades: ) a "full size car". Your eyes have to work properly in the first place to tell the difference. Just checked. The base SEL FWD comes in at 3643 pounds with 263 HP. Your Grand Marquis weighs in at 4094 pounds with 224 HP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 Get a Sirius P&P receiver. You'll never listen to terrestrial radio again. Believe it or not we had Sirius. We canceled it after 3 months. I love talk radio. Strange but true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadrunner Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 Nobody listens to AM radio anymore. People who like talk radio do -- whoever those nutjobs are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadrunner Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 Get a Sirius P&P receiver. You'll never listen to terrestrial radio again. Why should I pay for an extra radio system when I am satisfied with FM radio and CDs and MP3-CDs? (not iPods, I don't do the iPod.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Reynolds Posted August 29, 2007 Share Posted August 29, 2007 Why should I pay for an extra radio system when I am satisfied with FM radio and CDs and MP3-CDs? (not iPods, I don't do the iPod.) One of those iHate MACs folks eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syrtran Posted August 29, 2007 Share Posted August 29, 2007 My old boss who has been a Ford man for years just bought his first Acura - blowing a tranny in a Continental, and then the Duratec engine in his 2003 Taurus blew a couple of month's ago - that was enough for him. If he could blow a Duratec in 4 years, wait till he finds out what lack of maintenance (or plenty of abuse) will do to a much tighter - and somewhat costlier - Honda engine. - Says the guy who doesn't do enough routine oil changes on his 6-year-old Duratec. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armadamaster Posted August 29, 2007 Share Posted August 29, 2007 Just checked. The base SEL FWD comes in at 3643 pounds with 263 HP. Your Grand Marquis weighs in at 4094 pounds with 224 HP. Make sure you don't factor TORQUE in there.....that way your point will sound that much better.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waymondospiff Posted August 29, 2007 Share Posted August 29, 2007 Make sure you don't factor TORQUE in there.....that way your point will sound that much better.... Does it matter? The Taurus will still pull away from a Panther. And handle better. And ride better. All while burning less fuel, offering more comfort, and attracting more buyers (as in actual paying owners, not taxi companies or police departments.) Scott Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted August 29, 2007 Share Posted August 29, 2007 Does it matter? The Taurus will still pull away from a Panther. And handle better. And ride better. All while burning less fuel, offering more comfort, and attracting more buyers (as in actual paying owners, not taxi companies or police departments.) Scott Bingo, we have a winner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadrunner Posted August 29, 2007 Share Posted August 29, 2007 (edited) One of those iHate MACs folks eh? Nah - I just don't use those personal portable music players. I never had a Walkman, I never had a DiscMan/personal CD player and I don't need an iPod either. To assume I need an iPod because all my buddies have one is groupthink. It's why so many Americans are in debt - they need to keep up with the Joneses on practical things like expensive cell phones, etc. (I got my cell phone free as part of starting a new plan, bare basics stuff 'cause I don't need a Razr or Chocolate like every single one of my friends) You experience more if you open up to more. You hear more if you keep your ears open. Edited August 29, 2007 by Roadrunner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadrunner Posted August 29, 2007 Share Posted August 29, 2007 Does it matter? The Taurus will still pull away from a Panther. And handle better. And ride better. / Believe it or not, I agree with Armada Master of the Panther Mafia regarding the getaway power of the Crown Vic versus the Taurus. Even though the Vic is heavier, it's got torque (and a V8). Anyone have 0-60 times for both cars? My Motor Trend with the glossed-over Taurus review (Sept. 07) is still loaned out. Agree with riding better, though -- even Town Cars feel rough, from the times I've ridden in them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted August 29, 2007 Share Posted August 29, 2007 (edited) Believe it or not, I agree with Armada Master of the Panther Mafia regarding the getaway power of the Crown Vic versus the Taurus. Even though the Vic is heavier, it's got torque (and a V8). Anyone have 0-60 times for both cars? My Motor Trend with the glossed-over Taurus review (Sept. 07) is still loaned out. Agree with riding better, though -- even Town Cars feel rough, from the times I've ridden in them. Well, considering that the 500 was faster off the line than the Crown Vic, I can almost guarantee that the new Taurus us faster Edited August 29, 2007 by suv_guy_19 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Reynolds Posted August 29, 2007 Share Posted August 29, 2007 Believe it or not, I agree with Armada Master of the Panther Mafia regarding the getaway power of the Crown Vic versus the Taurus. Even though the Vic is heavier, it's got torque (and a V8). Anyone have 0-60 times for both cars? My Motor Trend with the glossed-over Taurus review (Sept. 07) is still loaned out. Agree with riding better, though -- even Town Cars feel rough, from the times I've ridden in them. Motortrend estimated it @ 7.6 while C&D actually had a chance to test it and mustered 0-60 in 6.8. Panther's might have torque but all of that torque is routed through a 4 speed auto, and if I remember correctly the last test pegged it around 8 seconds to sixty. BTW doesn't the Crown Vic only have 16 lb/ft torque over the Taurus? I'd be willing to bet that a fully broken in Taurus might be able to sprint to 60 in 6.5. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.